More Letters to the Editor

• Letters to the editor: Feb. 23
• Letters to the editor: Feb. 16
• Letters to the editor: Feb. 9

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

How it will be in a one-paper town

Arthur Alpert offers several excellent suggestions in his recent essay, "A notebook to fill," Insight & Opinion, Dec. 26, for countering the "loss of diversity" in our local news media resulting from the possible disappearance of The Tribune.

His comments were largely directed at the Albuquerque Journal, which will be the sole remaining major newspaper in the Albuquerque metro area. . . .

The core issue that has so many readers upset by the possible disappearance of The Tribune is that the Journal will inherit a virtually unchallenged monopoly of our print media and have unfettered ability to promote its right-wing political perspectives.

The Journal has a long track record of endorsing Republican candidates and of giving prominent exposure to columnists like Cal Thomas and Charles Krauthammer.

Its editorial cartoonist, John Trever, can always be counted on to produce graphic images of Republican sound bytes. . . .

With the possible disappearance of The Tribune, the Albuquerque Journal editorial board should recognize that it would inherit a heavy responsibility to the intelligent, politically diverse readership in the Albuquerque metro area.

Keep in mind that our voters were largely split between Democrat and Republican in the last presidential election. An ominous warning of what could happen to politically biased news venues was recently sounded when KASA-Channel 2 - the Fox News affiliate - dropped its news program and replaced it with a CBS-affiliated program. This occurred at a time when there was much public discussion of the extreme right-wing bias of Fox News, which seriously undermined its credibility and ultimately led to a drop in ratings.

If our daily print media are under the unfettered control of the Albuquerque Journal and its continuous track record of political bias, the perspectives of fully half of our citizenry will be ignored.

I am sure that many readers, like myself, will be actively looking for alternatives.

Roland Wagner

Albuquerque

• • •

Good riddance to liberal Tribune

You, as most liberal news media, spent 2007 bashing the president. . . .

We have the sorriest Congress that has ever existed in our history, and yet no anti-comments about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What a farce those two are! . . .

Any support for our troops by this paper is questionable. Any good news out of the war zone is seldom printed. But if an accusation of bad behavior by one of our troops is made, then that accusation makes the front page.

One good thing about The Tribune possibly going under is that it will eliminate one source of liberal lies and distortion.

C.W. Hubbard

Albuquerque

• • •

Reasons not to bomb Iran

I was shocked to find that, according to one poll, 52 percent of Americans are in favor of bombing Iran, if it means preventing it from getting nuclear weapons. . . .

Mike Huckabee had the nerve to say we might try talking to Iran - really try, not Bush-try, before we start talking about bombing it. For his troubles he was treated like a pariah in the Republican Party, but he doesn't back down. He says Bush has an "arrogant, bunker mentality" in world affairs. I'm starting to like this guy.

Aside from the cockamamie, hare-brained idea that pre-emptive war is an answer to anything, let's take a look at other reasons we should not bomb Iran.

• It wouldn't do any good, because everyone knows the loose nukes are in Pakistan. We've just bought into Bush's demonization of Iran so much that we keep forgetting the reality.

• It will put us in mortal danger of terrorist counter-attacks, because Iran has promised that it has 40,000 suicide bombers ready to go against us if we attack. They're not laying still for this. We can stop some of them, but not all of them.

• It's wrong. The evangelicals among us insist we are a Christian nation, so why don't we start acting like Christians? Iran has one of the youngest populations in the world, and we'd be slaughtering children. There is no such thing as a surgical strike, and the generals know it.

• Even if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut, which he is, he has no power, and the Iranian people are not our enemy.

Let's take a quick look at our dark history with Iran. Here was a country headed for democracy in 1953, when the oil companies decided they didn't like this, and the CIA installed the shah. The shah turned out to be one of the worse torturers in history, and Iran was under his boot, with us supporting the shah, until 1979 when they overthrew him. They equate that day with our Fourth of July, and they should. We were on the wrong side, and we should just admit it.

Here's the amazing thing: They don't hate us. They understand that what our government did to them was not the American people. Iranians traditionally like Americans and admire our democracy. Ahmadinejad regularly gets booed by the students at Iranian universities, where they don't like his anti-Jewish talk and his antics.

If ever there was a country worth engaging, it's Iran. . . .

Ralph Lopez

Tularosa

• • •

Good memories of Altamirano

Re: "Remembering Altamirano," Tribune, Dec. 28.

Senate President Pro Tem Benny Altamirano was truly a great one.

For two years, he endorsed and volunteered to sponsor the bill to create a powerful new Nutrition Council for New Mexico, of which I was the author, and he saw the need to have expressed powers to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when it was wrong.

He spoke of the need to have viejos and comrades serving on the council, if it was really going to help the people improve their health - not just industry apparatchiks.

Then the corporate lobbyists who had nothing to gain and everything to lose if the Nutrition Council ever were passed by the Legislature turned on him and forced the bill's evisceration in a couple of Senate committees.

He always had time to talk with you and always saw very deeply into matters of ordinary people and the problems deriving from poverty, stemming from his own experiences growing up somewhat poor in Grant County.

He was no hack, like some of the very powerful in the Roundhouse. I think the main reason he rose to power was his even-handedness as Senate Finance chairman for 17 years, disbursing the state's money fairly, judiciously and without the faintest hint of scandal or dishonesty.

I totally agree with Lt. Gov. Diane Denish who had this to say about Ben Altamirano: "Of all the people that I thought made the Senate kind of balanced, warm and welcoming, it was Ben. He was such an even-handed, upbeat, optimistic person," she said. "Someone will be appointed, but no one will replace him," Denish added.

All of New Mexico will miss him profoundly.

Stephen Fox

Managing editor, Santa Fe Sun News

Santa Fe

• • •

Richardson for president? Nope

Gov. Bill Richardson wants to be president of the United States. On Thursday, Iowans determined if they want that for him, too. . . . We encouraged them to consider what kind of state governor he's been.

Richardson touts his experience: He's been a U.S. representative, ambassador to the United Nations, President Clinton's energy secretary and, now, governor of New Mexico. No argument with that.

He also touts his fiscal responsibility and free market nature, saying: "As governor, I have to, by law, balance budgets. I've balanced five." He also calls himself "a market Democrat." Big argument there.

On one hand, as governor, Richardson cut the top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent over five years and cut capital gains taxes in half. On the other hand, Richardson increased several taxes and fees, including motor-vehicle registrations, hunting and fishing licenses, cigarette taxes, truck fees and tire-recycling fees that were only recently offset by the gradual reduction in tax rates.

While his tax cuts have helped jump-start our poor economy - personal income levels in the state have risen from 47th in the nation to 45th during his term - the flood of revenue from New Mexico's mining, oil and gas industries has helped compensate for Richardson's out-of-control spending. Spending rose by nearly 11 percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and averaged a robust 7 percent before that.

Even more troubling than his big-spending ways is the fact that Richardson has done everything possible to slaughter the herd of cash cows that balanced his budgets for him.

Richardson backed a federal law that kicked oil and gas development out of the state's energy-rich Valle Vidal - but not out of Ted Turner's next-door ranch with its 500 working oil wells. Down went future tax revenues.

Richardson signed a state bill giving ranchers with grazing permits control over energy operations on government lands - with hefty cost increases for oil and gas companies. Down went future tax revenues.

As governor, he imposed stringent renewable-energy mandates. He now also supports mandates to require the nation's utilities to derive 30 percent of their power from renewable sources.

The fact is, however, that only 6.9 percent of the nation's energy came from renewables last year, with about 3.3 percent coming from biomass - ethanol, biodiesel, waste wood and garbage. Wind and solar combined produced less than one-half of 1 percent of our total needs.

The energy Richardson wants us to believe is an "alternative" is really only a supplement, and a tiny one at that. Killing off fossil fuels before there is a real alternative is economic suicide, not responsibility.

We who live here know it's because he's beholden to national environmental groups and their multi-million-dollar campaign to eliminate fossil fuels - a campaign they call No Dirty Oil and Gas, or NoDOG for short.

About half of New Mexico's general fund used to roll in from oil, gas and mining industries. Huge royalties from oil and gas leases used to flow into the public schools' permanent fund.

When those wells dry up, New Mexico will continue to be one of the poorest states in America, with its fastest-growing revenue source in recent years gone.

Richardson is not through playing energy-killer in New Mexico just yet. He's now backing new regulations for oil drilling waste pits that could add $300,000 to the cost of a single well. . . .

The endless agency hearings on these new rules were so discouraging that independent producer Tom Mullins said, "I am no longer looking to invest here. I'm looking to cut my losses."

We're hearing that all over the state, because of Richardson. How would you think America would like to hear that all over because of "President Bill Richardson?"

Marita K. Noon

Executive director

Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy

Albuquerque